Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2
¶The Confutation of the second booke.
HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand, that the reall presence, the corporall presence, and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament, is not the true catholique doctrine, but a deuise of the Papistes, which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes, among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish: But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter, as I hauehave shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes, partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors, concerning the true reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation. For enter wherunto, first I say this, that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome, in a generall counsaile, where the Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word, was older and beleued before vponupon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes, and was in that counsayle confessed, not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christes mistery, and therfore in this realme (the authority of Rome cessing) was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle, specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established, of that and other articles hath bene repelled, yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred, that I hauehave hard, wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome, seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also: and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy, so Christ be preached, the person should not empayre the opening of truth, if it be truth, which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation, not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter, (as is afore sayd) in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation, I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes, wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist.Zuinglius. One is that Zuinglius himselfe, who was no Papist as is well knowen, nor good christen man as some sayd neither, sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament, it must nedes be true, that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiation also. Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle, who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither, and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth, that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is Transubstantiatiō also, which shalbe one meane of purgation, that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination, which was not his absolutely, but of a necessity of the truth, howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it, whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure. An other defence is, that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible, with many other termes that he addeth, should be the body of Christ, and therfore I thinke, that the (is) that is to say, the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken, was of his body and bloud, and not of the bread and wine, and therfore can well agree with this author, that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter, which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique …ayth teacheth, to assent to Transubstantiation, not as determined by the church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament: which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne, I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider, and with true opening of his handeling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth.
I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes (This is my body) which wordes I heard this Author (if he be the same that is named) once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation (as followed) of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth.